The Epsom Skin Clinic

Updated 24 June 2021

The Epsom Skin Clinic is operated by Forever Young Medical Aesthetics Limited. It is a private clinic in Epsom, Surrey. The service opened in 2004 and primarily serves the communities of Surrey. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area.

The service has had a registered manager in post since 2004 and is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Surgical procedures

The service was last inspected in 2014 under a different methodology and had some compliance actions following this inspection. The provider submitted an action plan which we monitored.

The service sees patients on a day case basis and has no overnight beds. It is a small independent cosmetic clinic which has seven clinic rooms, 30 employees including cleaning staff, seven nurse and aesthetic therapists, five front of house staff, a clinic manager, two nurses and a doctor.

In the past 12 months the service has carried out 219 procedures. Of these, 69 were multiple procedures, 72 single procedures and 78 plastic surgery procedures.

The service provides cosmetic surgery to patients over the age of 18. The clinic also provides some treatments not regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for children and cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and laser hair removal and injection of botulinum toxin. We did not inspect these services.

We carried out a short notice announced inspection on 13 May 2020 using our comprehensive inspection methodology

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Updated 24 June 2021

We have not rated the service before. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• There was culture of progress embedded in the leadership team. Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Managers were constantly reviewing and making changes and improvements to the clinic. Staff understood the service’s vision and values and felt respected, supported and valued. There was a culture of patient focused practice among all staff. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• There was no appointed safeguarding lead.
• The service did not collect quality patient reported outcome measures (QPROMS) for patients undergoing blepharoplasty (surgery to remove excess skin or fat from the eyelids).
• The clinic had access to a telephone interpreting service. However, the service used staff and family members to interpret as needed so staff could not be sure correct information was given to the patient.
• Pre-assessment documents did not prompt staff to evaluate patients’ psychological state.

Updated 24 June 2021

We have not previously rated the service. We rated it as good.